| Comment Number: | OL-10510867 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 12:36:13 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
What is happening to the Defense Department and to the government workers, prompts me to write and voice my concerns and opinions. I felt appalled and degraded by the statements of Undersecretary of Defense, David Chu printed in the news about the changes to the personnel system being brought up to Congress for approval for implementation. Along with the statements made recently by the Secretary of Defense to completely change the personnel system and do away with old practices. I agree changes do need to be made. I wish the changes would start at the very top this time. I disagree with the concept that performance should be placed ahead of longevity. Longevity is a different use for the meaning of the word experience. Make it sound less important by changing the word and the meaning and it will be reduced to nothing. Knowledge and experience go hand in hand. Without experience knowledge is not gained. Experience is gained by longevity (been there and done that). I strongly believe experience with knowledge is a better indicator of performance as it is objective in concept. The perception of performance as an personnel indicator is a subjective idea to say the least. It deals with how well your liked by your supervisor and how they can show 'good data' up the chain of command more than your competence to do your job and do it well. Corrupt wordsmithing integrated into business management and economic practices trainings along with flawed economic and accounting metrics have paralyzed the operations of the Defense Department with massive inefficiencies and false sense of accomplishments and no accountability. The statements made openly about these coming changes by our leaders and the climate of an upcoming Reduction In Force (RIF's); the OMB A-76 flawed process with the focus on contractors taking over our operations on AFB's, the new personnel management system (a new ways to circumvent unions and job protections) supposed to be developed to make it easier to hire and move workers and the lack of response or statements by some of our elected leaders and representatives shows a disgusting lack of concern. This all shows how the military structure is being changed from within to a business like structure. Profit. The idea is to run the military like a business and the perception this will save money. Slowly change the structure and implement changes to best commercial practices (efficiencies). Ask the Halliburton Company about these best commercial practices, ask the Kellogg, Brown, and Root about these best commercial practices, ask the Boeing Company about these best commercial practices. Ask Ms. Darleen Druyun, the Air Force official recently pled guilty to a felony (dancing around the government ethics law?). Let me say that best commercial practices means to maximize profit in the business world at the expense of the workers. After the contractors take over they will maximize profit by increasing the price of their services and products. (The fox will be guarding the hen house.) Slowly raise the prices as much as they want after they get in as long as the customer is comfortable with your services and products, no problems. Buy and install the cheapest working systems or subsystems and keep the maintenance of it. Lowest bidder saves money! What a moneymaker for them. A concept that does not belong in a military setting. As a constituent of South Mississippi I respectfully request that my elected officials pay very close attention to what is happening and about to happen when these changes are brought to them for approval and funding by the officials in the DOD. I agree that modernization is a necessary thing to do. I do not want money and effort made to change the organization if it will be wasted on unproven and suspect modern business methods (reforming). Along with the idea that this is being implemented to bring about another round of affirmative actions for minorities to be place ahead of experience. False.